Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

21 November 2012We’ve been trapped into the web of a bum five line stave with neums (neither of which give an accurate graphic image of note pitch and duration) ever since Crazy Horse Guido d’Arezzo (Middle Ages) came up with the antiquated garbage.

But to give the joker his fair due ,.. the chappie wanted to give members of his choir a visual indication of the ups and downs in the chants ... adding symbols indicating note duration.

And since then we stumble on and make bland statements like that of bennevis (no insult intended) with “I’d say music theory is the equivalent of grammar”...(whatever that means).

The truth is that we have not broken out of our notation hoodoo ... and hammer away at out our pianos, using endless repetition of an obsolescent notation system ... to eventually sound quite good.

But the solution to prima vista reading lies in a notation system which accurately indicates the pitch and duration of notes (vertically and horizontally) ... linking the symbols into a clearlydefined map of the music.

Mark_C
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 19969
Loc: New York

Originally Posted By: Damon

Originally Posted By: Mark_C

Originally Posted By: Damon

By whom?

I take it you'll feel your question was answered.

Not really. An authentic cadence is just V, I, the sub-dominant is optional. I've never heard anyone refer to II as the sub-dominant before and still haven't, definitively. But that's okay if you want to think of it that way, from my perspective, it is unnecessarily confusing.

Consider the context of what I said.

The OP was wanting to get a basic idea of what these terms mean when he sees them, and that's what I was trying to give him. Sure, if you're talking narrow definitions, what you said is right. But as per the posts by some other people, the term "subdominant" is indeed sometimes used for II chords, when they serve a subdominant-type of function (I understand that you haven't come across the usage) and I thought it would be good to mention that for him in case he came across such a usage. I didn't get into "but strictly speaking it's not 'really' a subdominant, and BTW it would usually be just for versions of II like II6 or II65" for what I think are obvious reasons for such a context.

Mark_C
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 19969
Loc: New York

Originally Posted By: Dave Horne

Guys, I just skimmed the last few posts ... you make it even more confusing when you write II (for a diatonic triad built on scale degree two in major) when ii clearly indicates the flavor of the triad as being minor.

I see a II chord (in the cadence context) and I immediately think five of five or a major triad built on scale degree two.

Your objection and your concept go against standard notation and terminology. The standard meaning of II, at least in classical music, is how it's been used here. When it's the major chord functioning as "V of V," it's called "V of V." If it's not, it's the minor chord.

I was under the impression that a diatonic ii chord in major was being labeled II. I must have misunderstood what was being conveyed.

My standard notation goes something like this:

C Major: ii, V, I = Dm, G, C

II, V, I = D, G, C ... and I probably would have written ... [V] of V, V, I ... back in the university.

In that context it amounts to the same thing, but there is a place for upper and lower case II chords because the modified II doesn't always lead to V. It depends on the context. I learned advanced harmony at university and they still teach V/V in terms of functional harmony analysis, but modern composition doesn't always fit in the neat boxes, so being able to sharpen or flatten any chord by putting # or b in front of the roman numeral, as well as being able to use an upper or lower case numeral for the chord gives total flexibility to describe the harmony.

As to whether a chord is described as an applied (secondary) dominant to another chord depends somewhat on the skill of the analyst to notice it, and the preference of nomenclature. For me seeing a II V I will suggest a V/V V I, but either description sits fine with me.

21 November 2012We’ve been trapped into the web of a bum five line stave with neums (neither of which give an accurate graphic image of note pitch and duration) ever since Crazy Horse Guido d’Arezzo (Middle Ages) came up with the antiquated garbage.

But to give the joker his fair due ,.. the chappie wanted to give members of his choir a visual indication of the ups and downs in the chants ... adding symbols indicating note duration.

And since then we stumble on and make bland statements like that of bennevis (no insult intended) with “I’d say music theory is the equivalent of grammar”...(whatever that means).

The truth is that we have not broken out of our notation hoodoo ... and hammer away at out our pianos, using endless repetition of an obsolescent notation system ... to eventually sound quite good.

But the solution to prima vista reading lies in a notation system which accurately indicates the pitch and duration of notes (vertically and horizontally) ... linking the symbols into a clearlydefined map of the music.

IPSO FACTO

Sadly there's no going back.

Sorry, but that's just pure bat crazy talk. I have to question your level of understanding of music theory and skill at the piano if you can hold this view.

It depends on the context. I learned advanced harmony at university and they still teach V/V in terms of functional harmony analysis, but modern composition doesn't always fit in the neat boxes, so being able to sharpen or flatten any chord by putting # or b in front of the roman numeral, as well as being able to use an upper or lower case numeral for the chord gives total flexibility to describe the harmony.

Yes, context is everything ... and I qualified myself by writing the following ... I see a II chord (in the cadence context) and I immediately think five of five or a major triad built on scale degree two.

I've always liked figured bass since it was so pure, if you know what I mean. No analysis per se, just the intervals.

IIb-V-I or IV-V-I is all old hat. Gimme Ic-V-I (or Ic-V7-I) anyday - much more 'final' . Mendelssohn uses it a lot in Elijah etc....

one could even have IIb7-Ic-V-I for a great final cadence :p

While on the subject of interesting harmonies, and bearing in mind the reindeer-and-bearded-man-in-red-suit season coming upon us, I wonder which harmonization of 'O Come All Ye Faithful' (Adeste fideles) people here will be singing in a few weeks' time. Here in UK, David Willcocks's harmonization is almost universal, even if choral conductors may write their own descants and harmonizations for the last two verses. Willcocks use I-II7d-Vb for the first line, but in Germany and most other countries, I've only ever heard I-Vb. (In case anyone doesn't know, in the key of G, that II7d chord is G-C-E-A from bass to soprano/treble: in effect, the low G is being used like a suspension before dropping down to F# for Vb, thereby also avoiding consecutive fifths and octaves which would otherwise occur with the awful I-II-Vb).

And how about that all-time favorite 'Silent Night'/Stille Nacht, which has been subjected to all sorts of arrangements/derangements over the years? (And let's not forget that the tune as we know it today isn't quite the same as what Franz Xavier Gruber wrote....) There's the simple and straightforward Willcocks and Philip Ledger (who sadly passed a few days ago) versions, all the way up to the weird and wonderful Jan Sandström's harmonization/arrangement.

_________________________
"I don't play accurately - anyone can play accurately - but I play with wonderful expression. As far as the piano is concerned, sentiment is my forte. I keep science for Life."

I've always liked figured bass since it was so pure, if you know what I mean. No analysis per se, just the intervals.

Yes, figured bass is good too. We had to be fluent in all of the styles of representing harmony to pass our harmony course. They all have their benefits. It takes a bit longer to be fluent with figured bass but it's very efficient.

And since then we stumble on and make bland statements like that of bennevis (no insult intended) with “I’d say music theory is the equivalent of grammar”...(whatever that means).

None taken, my dear fellow.

But a word of advice, if I may: it's better to keep your ignorance to yourself rather than boast about it on a public forum......

_________________________
"I don't play accurately - anyone can play accurately - but I play with wonderful expression. As far as the piano is concerned, sentiment is my forte. I keep science for Life."

And how about that all-time favorite 'Silent Night'/Stille Nacht, which has been subjected to all sorts of arrangements/derangements over the years? (And let's not forget that the tune as we know it today isn't quite the same as what Franz Xavier Gruber wrote....) There's the simple and straightforward Willcocks and Philip Ledger (who sadly passed a few days ago) versions, all the way up to the weird and wonderful Jan Sandström's harmonization/arrangement.

I've always liked figured bass since it was so pure, if you know what I mean. No analysis per se, just the intervals.

Yes, figured bass is good too. We had to be fluent in all of the styles of representing harmony to pass our harmony course. They all have their benefits. It takes a bit longer to be fluent with figured bass but it's very efficient.

the thing I love about figured bass if that you don't need to necessarily think in a.certain key.

At the music college in London where I am now (rather not name it) I choose this analysis elective where we get to analyse harmonically and contrapuntally several of the great works but instead of analyzing it with your usual I-V notation we do it by analysing the relationship between the different voices and we end upwith some figured bass like notation below the score.

I find it easier to understand it that way than to write a series of Roman numerals.

Plus with Roman numerals just tell you what harmony there is, whilst figured bass tells you how the lines in the music progress.

Steve, George Shearing died last year at the age of 91. I was amazed at just how little was said about him here and in the Dutch press.

That My Ship album is one of the very finest examples of piano playing. He plays a Bösendorfer and the piano (at least through the CD and headphones) sounds gorgeous.

Not only did he posses incredible technique, he also had a very high musical IQ. The highest compliment I can pay is this, I forget I'm listening to a person or a piano and only hear the music. He was an extraordinary musician. This particular arrangement can bring tears to my eyes. I hear him play and I think I should simply stop practicing.

He also seemed like he was a great human being as well. I only wish I could have heard him live.

“Sometimes you will find IIb instead of IV in an authentic cadence. IIb-V-I instead of IV-V-I. In that sense it is functioning as a subdominant in that it's preparing the dominant, but you should be careful not to confuse this with the subdominant degree of the scale.”

Elucidate do!! ... might have to take up Rocket-Science to crack this one.

Elucidate do!! ... might have to take up Rocket-Science to crack this one.

I do concur with all my heart, my dear fellow. Sometimes, talking about the intricacies of musical theory (and let's not even touch atonalism with a barge pole of any length) leads one into alleyways which a rocket scientist would baulk at. And I'm an expert on this, for I'd personally constructed an Airfix model of Apollo 11 (with the help of my father) when I was just 9 .

_________________________
"I don't play accurately - anyone can play accurately - but I play with wonderful expression. As far as the piano is concerned, sentiment is my forte. I keep science for Life."